User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/23

I added to the Consensus
Discussion for Pol Pot just letting you know

Barnstar

 * Thanks, but all I do is keep the article within consensus. Rodhull  andemu  11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Welcome. I stride to make my edits like yours.-- Michael  (Talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Hello, KeltieMartinFan This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This edit is unacceptable, and if repeated in any shape or form, may lead to you being blocked for personal attacks. We are meant to be a cooperative environment and that sort of thing poisons the well. Please comments on edits, not editors; and nobody is obliged to edit with an account. Rodhull andemu  13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Nobody is obliged to edit with an account.  However, that’s not the main point here.  In a story, there’s always two sides to the discussion.  With all due respect, I have reasons to believe that you are seeing only one side of the story.  This particular user who I currently am in a disagreement with, 87.69.176.81 (talk), has a series of unsourced edits and unconstructive edits to various articles.  And with all due respect, I have not seen this particular editor contribute positively to any articles he has edited, and a few other editors feel the same way as well as evident from his own (talk page)   When other editors, including myself try to revert his unconstructive edits, he reverted right back.  And before any of us know it, we are engaging in unwanted edit war with this user.  To add insult to injury, he goes around the talk pages pretending to be a wikipedia administrator and put warnings out each and everyone of them in hopes that he can intimidate them in from interfering in his unconstructive ways.  You accuse me of “poising to well” here on wikipedia.  But what about 87.69.176.81 (talk)?  Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t putting unsourced and unconstructive edits, engaging in edit wars with more than one editor, pretending to be a wikipedia administrator, and putting random warnings left and right to his opposition illegal here on wikipedia, and constitute to “poisiong the well” also?  As far as see, I don’t any sanctions and warning handled down to him, and he did a lot more damage than I did.  It is never in my nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia.  But sometimes, honest and civil wikipedians face unwanted uncivility from these uncivil editors.  And to be honest, whenever one tries to report an incident to a wikipedia administrator in hopes that it may be resolved, a lot of times the administrator turns a blind eye.  Somestimes, like this instance, they protect the wrong person. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the provocation, I didn't see it in any way as justification for your post to the IP's talk page and the warning was solely in respect of that post. The matter is now at WP:ANI, and if any admin thinks the IP deserves a sanction, s/he will get one. If you have had a problem with this editor, we have avenues for complaint such as Wikiquette Alerts and Dispute Resolution; blowing your top in that manner is unacceptable. Rodhull  andemu  15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Hi! That's what I thought - that the categories rolled up into Category:AIDS-related deaths in the United States but when I attempted to use that category to see the combination of all of the other AIDS-related deaths in [state] and it was only picking up those people actively added to the Category:AIDS-related deaths in the United States category.
 * The top category for USA includes all the subcats for the States; that's why you won't see them at the top level. Rodhull  andemu  20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I mean at the bottom of the page where Elizabeth Glaser and others are listed, shouldn't it also list all of the people in each state category since the states are encompassed by the nation? Amhershberger (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's a hierarchy of categories, e.g. USA includes all the States, California includes LA, SF, Fresno, San Diego, etc. We categorise by the most restrictive category to provide maximum information. If there are any individuals in USA, it's because either we don't know what State they died in, or nobody has applied the more appropriate category yet. Hope that helps, but I'll take a quick look at it. Rodhull  andemu  20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hint: if you want to mention a category without it being applied to the page you're editing (and specifically myself!) add a colon as in Category:AIDS-related deaths in the United States . Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see - thanks, I will get to work properly categorizing those in the US category. Amhershberger (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just started this myself, and have done Mel Boozer. If you start at the top, I'll work from the bottom of the list. Rodhull  andemu  20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Not to make you my personal guide to Wikipedia, but is there a list of "stuff that needs" doing anywhere - I'm interested in cleaning up pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amhershberger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good job. I noticed Adrian Lee Kellard was in a bit of a mess, so if you're interested in getting it to standards, that'd be a good place to practice. Otherwise, Category:Articles that need to be wikified goes way back, and any assistance would be welcome; there used to be a Project to manage these, and it's where I learned how to write articles. Let me know if you have any problems. Rodhull  andemu  20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

-
if you dont stop leaving me disuptive messages on my talk page i will report you to a fyad admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.170.179 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple; it's not "your" page; it's Wikipedia's page which is on loan to you. You can avoid such messages by stopping vandalising articles. And, FYI, I am an admin. However, thanks for crossing my radar once more; it just means that you may be assured of my *special attention*. If you didn't vandalise Mick Jagger, you could avoid getting such messages by starting a user account here; it isn't that tricky. Thanks for getting back to me, however. Rodhull  andemu  00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan
Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tesco
Hi, you said "useless list; please justify on Talk page". This isn't a useless list (well, no more so than any other list). This is section of the page that details "active opposition" to Tesco expansion and what is listed are the cases of such opposition. So, it is a list that acts as evidence of the subject discussed. You also undid the edit that corrected "some cases" to "almost 200 cases" - "some" is not an accurate representation of so large a figure. Claudetc (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and I'd say you are dangerously close to pushing a point and campaigning inappropriately rather than writing neutrally; it's all you appear to write about and thus you run the risk of being considered a single-purpose account. The list itself merely confirms that there are groups in many locations opposing Tesco's expansion plans, and I doubt if we need such a list here when there is a website to which readers can be referred. Furthermore, the list is so long as to weaken the proposition that there is anything special about these protests and therefore that they deserve to be mentioned here at all. Additionally, the list is far too huge in relation to the rest of the article that it is as a result, being given weight beyond its relevance. There is an article, Criticism of Tesco, where this sort of thing might well belong (but to be honest, I would disagree that it does; Tesco are merely taking planning decisions based on commercial considerations, which is perfectly legal, although obviously unpopular). I suggest this is discussed, not here, but on Talk:Tesco, where other editors may wish to add their opinions. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying, and point taken about the size of the list. Still trying to find my way around using wikipedia, so this is helpful. It's all I appear to write about because I've only just started contributing to wikipedia, if that makes any sense.Claudetc (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversation moved to Talk:Tesco for wider input. Rodhull  andemu  19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Delara Darabi
Sounds fine to me. I (and I think we all) could do without a massive edit war between pro and anti Iranians over this. I removed the alleged as per my description, we can't judge whether the conviction is right or wrong as you say. Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool, fine buildings and NPOV
The way to avoid POV is to avoid adjectives based on individual opinion ('fine', 'skillful', 'evil') and instead describe things, e.g. 'the X building in Liverpool was built in Y and is an example of the Z style' or 'Hitler was head of the regime that...etc' and allow people to form judgements based on that. Haldraper (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a sourced opinion, we can say it ourselves. I'll dig my Pevsner out. Rodhull  andemu  19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of honorific titles in popular music
Why did you delete my SOURCED addition? Reverting seems to be the easy way out, but please take time to see what people actually do the next time. I didn't just remove something, I added something, I sourced it, and you deleted it. --Agusk7 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed Courtney Love (sourced) and added P J Harvey (also sourced); the removal without giving a reason looked like vandalism. Then you removed a source from Green Day and added a fact, without any discussion on the Talk page, which also looked like vandalism. I suggest you propose further changes on Talk before making them, so as not to annoy other editors who have put a lot of work into the article. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, can't you just leave PJ Harvey there then? It was sourced. Pink doesn't even make rock music. I added a fact on Green Day without explaining anything because I think the reason is quite obvious; the source says "'We're the kings of punk rock!' Armstrong shouted, and he may be right". That doesn't mean anything... "he may be right". That's not an affirmation. --Agusk7 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to Polly going in, but not to replace already sourced content. I am aware of the work of Pink, but if someone has called her "the X of Rock", whether we agree with it not, it belongs in the article. The source on Green Day may be ambivalent, but since there is a source, it's probably better to raise the issue on the talk page. WP:BRD applies here, I think. Rodhull  andemu  20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did what I did because nobody ever replies on the talk page, unfortunately. I thought it was the best thing to do. I'm sorry, I'm not here to vandalize at all. --Agusk7 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK, it just looked like it; we get a lot of "fans" removing stuff and adding nonsense, and the article is a bit of a battleground at times. Quite a few editors watchlist it, however, so you'll get an opinion within a reasonable time. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, compared to those fanatics I'm very neutral. I just get mad when there's no common sense on the articles. Courtney Love doesn't even write her own songs... but if the criteria is whether someone was ever called "queen of rock" or not, it's OK. --Agusk7 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lennon, Apology and US Spelling
Here is a transcript of the press conference; you can read some quotes from 'The Love You Make' here (on page 195). It's possible to make the quotes in the Wikipedia article conform to those in the book (which BTW uses the spelling "apologize"), which could then be cited.

You'll also notice that the quotes in the Wikipedia article are not verbatim, regardless of how apologize/apologise is spelled/spelt, and need to be changed. R ad io pa th y  •talk• 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tricky one. We have a transcription from a US radio station interview, in which the transcriber will use their native spelling. Miles, the cited source, is a UK author, so will tend to use UK spelling. We don't know if the transcription is his or whether he is citing another, and not having the book to hand, I can't check what he wrote. For the time being, it isn't greatly important, but I will try to seek the book out. Google is less than helpful, for the same reasons. Rodhull  andemu  13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd "favour" sticking with the UK spelling for the sake of consistency, although it could be argued that since the word "apologize" was spoken by an American reporter that it should follow US spelling convention. Likewise, you could say that because it's being quoted by a British author that British English should prevail.    Like you say, tricky, and might just have to be tossed out for consensus.


 * In either event, I'll hopefully have time to be bold and change the quotes in the article to what was actually said that day! R ad io pa th y  •talk• 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New editor that needs watching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kristenxwentz - Only appeared today but has repeatedly vandalised three pages Bay of Pigs, Brett Michaels and Pamela Anderson despite warnings. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF</b> 00:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP violations and continued vandalism of Bay of Pigs after repeated warnings tells me this editor is not here to contribute constructively, and accordingly, s/he's been shown the door. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhull  andemu  00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre warriors
This might interest you. — R  2  15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very useful, thanks. I'll bear them in mind. Rodhull  andemu  15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might find this interesting too. — R  2  16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen it. Given the hassle I had last time with removing genre fields, I don't feel that keen on pitching in there. Perhaps better to get a fresh mind on it (although obviously I have an opinion). Rodhull  andemu  16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not getting involved either... — R  2  17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterspaces...
...is back under IP 79.65.95.97. Made some positive contributions to History of Everton F.C. but undid my tidying up, labelling it as vandalism. Dancarney (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked and reverted, although he seems able to switch IPs. I think some protection is needed, and I've given it a week. Meanwhile, the lead has far too much derail about the club's foundation. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhull  andemu  10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reggie Perrin
Hi! Why did you rv my edits? It is clear from the show that the scenes are filmed on a Chiltern Railways' train and at Princes Risborough station, and it is clearly stated in the programme that the character lives in Surrey (plus there are references to Surrey place names). As these two facts do not concur, I think a brief mention in the article is worthwhile. Such a paragraph might clarify some confused viewers.

Regards, Btline (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable, third party source, your own knowledge, however true it is, cannot be used here because this is original research. Anything in an article must be verifiable, but I'm sure there will be a reference to this somewhere among train enthusiasts' literature or in commentary about the programme. Hope that helps. Rodhull  andemu  17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a quick reply. Although I am aware of the WP guidelines, I did not realise this constituted OR. Apologies.


 * Thanks again. Regards, Btline (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

reply
the section is entitle Maincast, of which both now are, they in fact have more of a purpose to be there then Johnny, your argument is stupid, if a show is running for years but new characters become leads, they are main cast, longevity is of no issue Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is not the way we write about fiction. Please come back when you've read the guidelines. The infobox gives an overview of the whole series, not just a snapshot of "now". We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a journal. Rodhull  andemu  22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!
Dear Rodhullandemu,

I appreciate you granting me AWB rights. I will use them wisely, like I have with rollback (Check out my contribs)

From, Limideen 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Law work
I note that you're a former English lawyer and an active member of Wikiproject Law - would you be interested in collaborating on some projects? If it interests you I'm currently trying to get Alfred Denning, Baron Denning to FA, and a (later) project is to shiny up the Carbolic Smoke Ball case, probably to GA. Would you be interested in helping? Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem. I have three of Denning's books, but two of them are in storage for a couple of weeks. I'll take a look at the Carbolic case. Rodhull  andemu  12:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks :). Denning is already a GA and is pretty good, but I worry there are things I'm missing. As someone who practiced law when he was active (I wasn't even alive then) you might be able to see the gaps. Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Radar (song)...
has just been announced as a single, sure to be interesting how that affects the article. — R  2  20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Grate! (Doesn't it?). Expect the usual suspects to come flocking in. Rodhull  andemu  20:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to have Lady Gaga's official Myspace/twitter page on her biography?. I can't be sure what the footnote is trying to say? — R  2  20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems I have with linking to these sites are (a) establishing authenticity, since anyone can set one of these things up under any name whatsoever (compare MySpace & YouTube, where fake sites are rife), and (b) benefit to the encyclopedia, in the sense of "what does it add to an understanding of the subject of the article?". I have posted at WP:RS/N about this, but with little result. Our long-term problem is WP:V because although, even if genuine, the site may be used to announce some new single or other project, is it likely to be around in even three months time, and is it not more likely that we will find a more reliable and durable source elsewhere. However, you try to argue that with the fans! Perhaps an RFC may be useful here. Rodhull  andemu  21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't Jimbo want Myspace banned, or so I heard. — R  2  21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul O'Grady biog, Part I, "At My Mother's Knee - And Other Low Joints"
I am a litle bemused about why you decided to delete the content I was adding on this topic, which came from people who Paul intimately - namely his brother - and is verifiable. I felt that the article would benefit from a description of the themes of the biography and the criticism leveled at it by Paul's older brother who questions the veracity of many of the statements contained in the book. The content is verified as not libellous in that it came from a mainstream UK national newspaper, The Sunday People, and has not been the subject of any correction or apology. I have no intention or desire to get involved in a petty "edit war". However, I wonder if you can inform me whether there is any form of "appeal" against deletions by an admin level user... or does Wikipedia not entertain that concept? Chris-Johnson (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple. You didn't cite any sources, which is your responsibility. Policy on biographies makes it clear that unsourced material, particularly negative in tone, may be deleted by any editor. This stops the Foundation from being sued, which it can ill afford. You can seek a third opinion, but I very much doubt you'll get a different response. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused.... surely The Sunday People, a UK national newspaper is a verifiable "source". You have not answered that point. Chris-Johnson (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it's not the best source we can get- not regarded as being as reliable as, say The Sunday Times, but you didn't cite it. Citations aid verifiability by giving a reader information on where to check the information. Template cite news would be good enough for that, and of course, sources are vital in a biography.  Rodhull  andemu  19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay... thanks for your patience... if I can bend my mind and find the time to go through the rigamarole I will the source according to the decreed format. 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB User
Oops. Just noticed your reply to my request to register for AWB. I didn't actually get round to joining :) I am now joined to the project. I hope this is okay. <font color="#00ccff">Neu <font color="#0093b8">tralle  18:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry
i'm writing to apologise about what i wrote about the inventor of the spoon thing, it was just meant to come across as a polite joke or to ruin somones homework but i see thats not your point of view and i just wanted to say sorry for wasting your time and it will most certainly NEVER happen again, chow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.169.219 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I doubt any teacher would set homework on George Haden, except possibly in Trowbridge. and it's "ciao". Rodhull  andemu  14:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

dreadfully sorry
i would like to take this oppotunity to apologise in such detail about my DISGUSTINGLY OBVIOUS mispelling of the phrase "ciao" and i will NEVER EVER mispronounce the phrase again... chow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.169.219 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not pronunciation, spelling. A chow is a dog. Rodhull  andemu  15:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

btw
oh yeah, by the way you should really leave your parents basement and get a real job perhaps, or maybe stop playing "world of warcraft" and get a girlfriend or something so then maybe people will stop laughing at you and calling you a sad prick... CHOW! CHOW! CHOW! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 * 1. My parents are dead. 2. I'm in my own first floor room, with delightful views of the rural landscape. 3. I have had many real jobs, all well-paid, and am now retired. 4. I have no interest in playing World of Warcraft. 5. I have had many girlfriends, and a wife, who is also now dead. If people want to laugh at me, I guess that makes them the fool. Now, I have work to do, so please stop bothering me, otherwise I will block you for disruption. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
This image did have afair ratinole quit tagging my images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylove04 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rationale did not explain why no free image was available. In the case of current pop artists, all it takes is someone to go to a concert, take their own picture, and upload it here. You images thus fail WP:NFCC#1. Rodhull  andemu  16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of album covers, the "Licensing" template is only part of the story; you also need an Album cover fur to explain minimal use, etc. Rodhull  andemu  16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

208.71.53.19
Thank you for blocking 208.71.53.19; as you've discovered, this user has added deliberate factual vandalism on the same theme for months now. To make matters worse, much of the vandalism, at least initially, was overlooked because the name changes appeared plausible on first glance.

You'd be interested to know though that exactly the same vandalism is coming from 208.71.53.18 (in fact more of it). That IP has yet to be blocked. If you have time, you might take a look. LH (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and blocked for a month. Rodhull  andemu  20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pol Pot
Hey Rodhullandemu,

I read Philip Short's book on Pol Pot (which is offered as the citation for Pol Pot's ethnic background), and it only mentions that he is Sino-Khmer. There is no mention of any Vietnamese background. The only places where Pol Pot is suggested to be of Vietnamese descent are ultranationalist Khmer discussion boards, and I suspect that one of their members must have inserted the "Vietnamese" bit on his ethnic background.

P.S.: I'm new here. Where do I put the above explanation into the discussion section of this page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisim (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, if the cited source omits it, so should we. Normally discussions about articles take place on their Talk pages (second tab from the left at the top of the page), but I doubt this one will be contentious. It's also worth just putting a brief note in your edit summary, e.g. "source doesn't say this" to assist other editors. Thanks for getting back to me and happy editing! Rodhull  andemu  17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisim (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
I would like permission to use AWB so I can tag talk pages of villages in Poland. Can you supply the script necessary to use a bot with AWB to run that function? Thanks. Lackett (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd have to write your own bot and get it approved by WP:BAG before it can be given AWB approval; I've no experience of writing bots so can't help with that, sorry. You could ask any bot operator for help, they're listed on the AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage page. HTH. Rodhull  andemu  20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Yesterday (song)
nominated Yesterday (song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Email
Thanks for the signpost comment, bet that surprised you :D. By the way, I have just sent you an unrelated email. — R  2  23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read and replied. Rodhull  andemu  23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and replied. No need to reply again. Thanks. — R  2  23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!
(I'm really really bored...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.6.1 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So am I, because just as I've had enough after twelve hours dealing with vandalism and other nonsense edits here, and am ready for some sleep, about five people like you come along. Thanks a bunch. Rodhull  andemu  01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrest
If I'm not around for a while (possibly a long while), I have possibly been arrested for some nonsense terrorist accusation. Sorry, but normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. Rodhull andemu  01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know your work is successful when they resort to something like this. It's the 21st century version of phoning in a bomb threat on the day of the exam. Good luck. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that hopefully everything will be normal soon PirateSmackK Arrrr! 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of ....
That guideline says, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations", but other sections do. The sections with the "accuracy" analyses are not part of a film article's Plot description, so any material must be cited. Validation of the contents of a Plot section is performed differently than for other sections (consensus). More importantly, the section is comparing two works; WP editors cannot do the comaprison. It must be done by a reliable source, such as a reviewer or critic. So, a reliable source who makes the comaparison between the numbers of escapees in the film versus reality must be found, otherwise it's WP:SYN.HaroldPGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A careful reading of WP:SYN suggests otherwise to me; the two examples shown there, and commentary thereon, lead to the conclusion that we may state X and Y as properly sourced facts; what we may not do is state "X and Y, therefore Z". If we merely state X and Y, the reader may draw Z as a conclusion, but us doing so is a synthesis. Meanwhile, since the article has a cn at its top, it no longer needs to be liberally festooned with such tags, which merely annoy a reader.  Rodhull  andemu  17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This conversation now moved to Talk:Factual accuracy of The Great Escape‎ for wider input. Rodhull  andemu  00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To Rodhullandemu, Blueboar, Collect, 173.72.140.146,

FYI, I just posted a messasge at WP:NORN in the discussion Factual accuracy of The Great Escape that you had participated in, and which has been inactive for a few weeks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bono
Are you sure about this?--John (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the source? It's headed "satire, parody, jokes", which brings into question all its content. There must be a better one somewhere, and I have invited the editor to seek one. Perhaps not strictly vandalism, but certainly not a WP:RS. Rodhull  andemu  18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per VANDALISM, "if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." --Elliskev 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. This editor has been around for six months, however, so should know what is, and what is not, a reliable source by now. He hasn't taken the issue up, other than to blank his talk page, which I interpret as foot-stamping. Given the number of vandals I deal with on a daily basis, it's rare to see good-faith edits, but I will enable Talkpage editing in my normal "rollback" button. Rodhull  andemu  19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I will follow this editor's future career with great interest. --John (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Newman
Point taken. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Essential Janet Jackson
Would you mind making the decision to delete this aritcle? I've searched for information for the past few days regarding this so-called upcoming release and I'm entirely convinced its a hoax. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've checked myself- other than a radio programme and a Megaupload download (now removed), there are no sources, and no reliable ones. Rodhull  andemu  21:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re
Walkers Crisps edit.

Beautifully done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magpie1892 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some people can have a very narrow field of vision. Rodhull  andemu  23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

no-brainer
Certainly would be if I get the mop whipped away - but then if I got that so spectacularly wrong, then I would deserve it! Good 'un, I lol'ed! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that happening, and I'm not sure why you're doing it- but I wouldn't open up such a process if I had any doubts about the outcome. No criticism intended, however. Rodhull  andemu  00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a need for the ability to remove poor admins. Admin Recall is mostly an empty vessel, RfC's don't work, Admin Review is a backwater, RfAR has been difficult to get accepted - this process, while voluntary, provides a method. If an admin says they are right because they are an admin, then you can challenge them to go to RecFA to see if the community agrees...
 * "Without "Hong Kong Garden", there would have been no "Happy House"." Ronald Descartes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I agree that RfC is slow and a pre-requisite for RfArb unless abuse of the mop is blatant and gross enough to attract the attention of Jimbo or ArbCom directly. But there are admins whose conduct seems to be continually questioned, without apparent sanctions; some of these accusations will be just false, or witch-hunts, and when push comes to shove, a proper investigation is the only fair way to resolve such issues. However, our processes militate against relatively non-involved editors, because of their bureaucratic requirements, and I imagine many real grievances go by the board because of that. It also takes some commitment to follow through the full gamut of process when one's own actions are also under scrutiny. Meanwhile, "Dear Prudence - misjudgement or brave re-interpretation?; Candy Man - too understated to get the message across?" Rodhull  andemu  01:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quicksand Survivor
I saw your block of this user, and that it's a new account that just posted Hi on a number of user talk pages in quick succession. I'm just curious/confused as to what happened here, and I feel like the explanation is going to teach me something about Wikipedia that I don't already know. I guess a new account posting hi on a handful of select talk pages smacks of something fishy - is that why an indef block was applied, or was there more to it than that? Thanks in advance for un-confounding me. Seems like a very weird event. Mishlai (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No new user goes to a bunch of Admins' Talk pages and says "Hi". It just doesn't happen, because there's no reason why it should. Therefore, it's not a new user. If it's an existing user who is not blocked, they could taunt admins with their existing account, although that, too, might lead to blocking. Therefore, the only rational explanation is that it's a blocked user with a sockpuppet account yanking our chain, but fortunately, we are not that st00pid. Hope that helps. Rodhull  andemu  02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does. I wonder how I managed to make the list... I'm not an admin and I'm pretty unfailingly civil... but whatever.  Thanks for the explanation. Mishlai (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The complete picture is available at User talk:Quicksand Survivor‎, and I've been around here long enough to smell fish. Rodhull  andemu  04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Petula Clark
The CBE award has been listed in that article for years without being referenced! 209.247.22.164 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly, it should not have been. Verification policy requires citations for any information beyond the obvious "water is wet" sort of thing. However, there is a reliable citation there now, and all is well. Rodhull  andemu  18:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the AWB approval! :D Just saw on WT:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. I'll download it tonight, and I'll do my best not to abuse AWB. Best, <font face="comic sans ms"> Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

golden girls
exuse me sir but why did you think my edits were "vandalism"? The information I am imparting is useful and accurate, sir. Gerhardt Lammers (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it still requires reliable, third-party sources for verification. This is not negotiable. Rodhull  andemu  00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User Mookiman
Appears to be a vandalism only account of the childish juvenile type. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mookiman&action=edit&redlink=1. Have a look and see what you make of it. <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have had warnings, and have left a *gentle one* for now. But I will keep an eye on the contribs. Rodhull  andemu  00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism-only anonymous IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.108.178.51 . Suspected sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mookiman <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 10:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mookiman has vandalised after my warning of yesterday, so he's indef-blocked. The IP address, if it's him, should be caught in the autoblock for 24 hours, but in case it's another, I'll drop a warning on the IP. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhull  andemu  11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:123PatrickMC

 * I wonder if you would be willing to give me your opinion on what happened to the above account? As far as I can see he/she created a couple of inappropriate articles, one of which I tagged for SD. There was one warning issued. The account was then blocked by an admin for 12 months using what to my mind was a very sarcastic and inappropriate template that used a picture of a semi buried child and very patronising language. I wrote to the admin expressing surprise but she basically just said I was wrong. I would have thought that more warnings should have been given and even help or guidence offered. What's your take on it? Thanks-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have done that myself just yet, but it's within an admin's discretion; some are harder than others, but FisherQueen is experienced enough to know the rules. I'd say see if the editor asks to be unblocked; if they're keen to edit here, and competent enough, they'll work out how to do that. I'll watchlist the talk page myself. Rodhull  andemu  09:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply, I should think that the liklihood of the editor returning after receiving that template is very unlikely, did you have an opinion on the template? Regards-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose FisherQueen, being a teacher, would have some idea how to pitch such a message. I guess the editor is early teens from his contribs, so it appears to be at roughly his level; the image is intended to be humorous rather than vicious. Of course these things can backfire, but I find it difficult to get excited about the template. Rodhull  andemu  10:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for your input as always.-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of City Girls page
I'm sorry but what do you mean no third party sources? Please explain.

And also could you help me out with my signature as it doesn't work because no links happen when I click the button, thanks --Jonni Boi 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonni Boi (talk • contribs)
 * City Girls have to be a notable band to be included here, and the requirements for that are set out in WP:BAND. At present, the only references on their page seem to be MySpace and basically stuff they've published themselves; we don't regard that sort of thing as being reliable enough to support notability. Meanwhile, your sig looks fine and works for me; the reason it may not work for you is that you're already on the page you're clicking to go to. Hope that helps. Rodhull  andemu  17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown
Hi, I've answered your question on my own talk page. Basically the answer to your question can be found in the discussion page of the Paddy Ashdown article. This is the relevant (unsigned) text from that discussion page: The following page, on the Ministry of Justice website, seems to suggest that 'PC' and 'Right Honourable' are mutually exclusive alternatives. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foa-peers.htm#peers-pc PC is to be used for eg Dukes and Marquesses who are members of the Privy Council, because for example a Duke is 'His Grace' so will not be termed the Right Honourable and therefore without the letters 'PC' the Duke's Privy Council status would not be shown. However for Barons, eg a life Baron such as Paddy Ashdown, they should use 'Right Honourable' to show their Privy Council status and therefore the letters 'PC' are superfluous. Apparently barons who are not members of the privy council, should refrain from describing themselves as Right Honourable, to avoid confusion, even though they have traditionally been able to use this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodhouseian (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've now removed PC from Paddy Ashdown's titles againWoodhouseian (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gerry Gable
What is your issue against me? I claim you have a personal interest in this article and are not playing fairly by the rules. DO NOT THRATEN ME for following the rules, I am asking other editors to review your edits and threat against me 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue is that you replaced poorly-sourced potentially defamatory material against a living person: twice, once after a strong warning. That's a blatant breach of policy, and it is my duty to uphold that policy, to avoid involving the Wikimedia Foundation in litigation. That's all. Take it to WP:ANI, they could do with a good laugh. Thanks. Rodhull  andemu  20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly demonstrate that it is not poorly sourced. I've already shown the information to be valid to a standard of another article 81.105.9.22 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Gerry Gable. Rodhull  andemu  20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The George Inn, Norton St Philip
Thanks - I've used your photo as well on List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip as well.&mdash; Rod talk 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Beatles album)
Will revert this disambiguation. Forgot that rule. Apologies!--Tunebroker (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the (non-) redirect. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Walkers
Why did you revert my edit? These flavours have/will be withdrawn. Thedarxide (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd removed them because they were unsourced- they were certainly "unusual"- I think a brief section saying that these flavours were nominees in this promotion would be informative for historical purposes; indeed, that whole list needs rationalising at least between "current" and "past" flavours. I've just spent two hours sorting out another mess, and have others pending, but I will try to take a look at it when my energy reserves come back to normal. Rodhull  andemu  15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I added the picture of them :) The list does need tidying, and the tag needs to go.  I'm out tonight, but if you're not got to it tomorrow I'll start Thedarxide (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Katy Brand
Re: you reverting my edit. The sentence really makes more sense (and reads better) if we can determine what honours (etc) that she graduated in. I am accutely aware of the higher education structures in this country but that sentence does not seem right. Perhaps (without knowing exactly how she graduated) stating that she studied theology at Oxford and graduated in 19-- would be better. Or even 'she graduated from Oxford, having studied Theology'. It currently reads like she graduated while wearing Theology, which sounds ridiculous but I'm sure you get what I'm saying! I know what it means, but anyone reading this article who hasn't been through higher education is likely going to be perplexed by the phrasing. Any thoughts? Sky83 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help if we had her degree classification so we could write "graduated with a [2.ii] [BA] Honours degree in Theology", which I think would be clear enough; even BA or BD would make it more clear. I'd be surprised if anyone didn't know what "graduate" means, but then perhaps things have changed since my time at the coalface. However, 'she graduated from Oxford, having studied Theology' might be confusing, because Ian Hislop, for example, started with PPE but graduated in Eng. Lit. I'll go with whatever you think is optimum here. Rodhull  andemu  18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally understand where you're coming from, but I think for purposes of, should we say, clarity for the masses, I think it's just helpful to reword it. Assuming you have no objections, I will change it to 'Brand graduated from Oxford University, where she studied Theology', as this is good enough for now I think. If we can find a reliable source that gives the classification or anything stating that she studied any other subject, that can be added in the future. I get what you mean re Hislop (did that myself, started with Business Management, ended with Eng Lit with History), but we can put this in at a future date if info suggests this is the case with Brand. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, not sure about etiquette of joining your discussion here but I wonder if this might be helpful: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/comedy/article-23417346-details/Is+Katy+Brand+the+new+Catherine+Tate/article.do This says, amongst other things: 'She worked hard at the local comprehensive school and earned a place at Oxford to read theology but gradually became disenchanted with religion. "After about a year, I realised it was mostly rubbish and that things are never as simple as they seem when you are 13." So she spent most of her time at Oxford doing plays and musicals. Her contemporaries and co-stars were the future theatre star Rosamund Pike, the National Theatre's Rory Kinnear, and Katherine Parkinson. ' Regards. Woodhouseian (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate Bush
Hi there. Nice work fixing that - you beat me to it :-)

It's interesting, really. I was discussing on IRC, with an irate musician person who had had a self-written non-referenced AutoBio deleted and then their account blocked for username/promotion. I've spent a happy hour or two chatting to them, and tried to explain how things work. In the process of doing so, I looked for an example FA to show how things should work. They pointed out that her DoB and birth-name weren't cited, and I had to agree...so I did things by the book and added the tag. I then was looking for a source - I found one (from the Guardian Newspaper), but looked for a better one.

So, I found through Google Books, "The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music" - "Bush, Kate b. Catherine Bush, 30 July 1958, Bexleyheath, Kent, England.". I think that might be a more definitive RS than the one you added; if you think so, let me know or add it yourself. I made a tag;

Unfortunately, my internet is slow, and also I was hampered by the ongoing dialogue with the new user. So, by the time I came to add it, you'd already added yours. Cool though.

Anyway. I'm duly impressed that it was fixed so quickly, so give yourself a pat on the back. Also, it just, just *might* have slightly helped in explaining these tricky things to the new user.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We can usually rely upon Allmusic as being reliable. I've used Bruce Eder's articles on many occasions, and have no reason to doubt his accuracy. Of course, we have no better source without going to the level of looking up her birth certificate, but that usually is beyond the necessary. You can always add the Guinness boos as additional verification. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.229.233.239
Can you block the IP? It's just off a three week block for similar behavior, and it evidently has not learned its lesson.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rodhull  andemu  22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - May 2009 Issue
Summary: Whilst our application to HMRC has not yet been successful, we're after your views on the proposed New Chapters' Agreement, your suggestions for a Wikimedia UK conference next year and your ideas for initiatives to start! We also bring you updates on Wikipedia Loves Art, Other Chapters' Activities, Meet-ups and Press coverage.

In this month's newsletter:
 * 1) HMRC Application Status
 * 2) New Chapters' Agreement
 * 3) Wikimania 2010 (and beyond!)
 * 4) Initiatives
 * 5) Wikipedia Loves Art
 * 6) Other Chapters' Activities
 * 7) Meet-ups
 * 8) Press coverage

''Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.''

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

British National Party/Mark Walker
I've restored the paragraph in debate because I believe you may have misinterpreted the contents of the articles to which the claims are sourced. The Northern Echo (which satisifes WP:RS is every respect) contains virtually word for word the claims made in the Wikipedia article (please see discussion above): even Npovshark, a BNP supporter, accepted that in the end. It states explicitly that Walker was sacked as a result of his sickness record; this is relevant because his supporters had claimed in the press (see the BBC article).

Moreover, the sickness record incident is entirely separable from the BNP activity issue as again the Northern Echo article makes explicitily clear that the initial cause of his suspension was not any alleged BNP activity, but the fact he had been viewing pornography using school equipment. This is not about splitting hairs regarding the technicalities of the disciplinary process; if he had been suspended for alleged BNP activity and sacked for sickness that may or may not have been related to the disciplinary process, you were certainly have a point, but that was never the case. BNP activity was the cause neither of his suspension nor of his eventual sacking. I hope you won't be offended if I suggest you read both the Northern Echo and BBC articles again: it really is in there in black and white.

I'm also aware that there is a competing claim from Mark Walker's supporters as reported in the BBC article: however, it is not up to us to cast doubt on the clear contents of reliable sources without very good reason, and the wording as it stands does make mention of the competing claim. However, the claim of unnamed supporters, quoted second-hand and without endorsement in a BBC article represents a minority viewpoint at best when contrasted with the Northern Echo article, and thus we have no obligation to give it equal weight in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrFintonStack (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please see Talk:British National Party. Rodhull  andemu  23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I note you have now reverted the article on the basis that the "reference doesn't even mention Walker". I can only take this as futher evidence that you have not property read the reference sources, and I thus can only aggrieved at your baseless pronouncement that I had written the paragraph according to what I wanted the sources to say rather than what they did say.

The Northern Echo article's (source 192, as was, http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/3842774.NSPCC___s_worries_over_BNP_teacher/) second paragraph begins with the words "The dismissal of Mark Walker, from Sunnydale Community College in Shildon, County Durham, has attracted national interest because of his claims that his membership of the British National Party has made him the target of a witch-hunt" and the BBC's (reference 191, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7627055.stm) third to final states "Mr Walker's brother Mark, also a BNP member and technology teacher, was suspended by Sunnydale College in Shildon, County Durham, in March last year". Please address this matter as quickly as possible, and before editing the article further. Once we have established that the sources do indeed mention Mark Walker, we may be able to make some sort of headway regarding what claims they actually make: it is pointless to even try to discuss that beforehand.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) That was only my first amendment. I suggest you read the reference I deleted. Unless there is some way of writing in invisible ink on a webpage, which my Find: window cannot see, there was no mention of Walker in that reference, and I stand by that deletion. (2) I was not referring to you specifically in my comment, merely those who would seek to go beyond what can be reasonably supported by the cited source. (3) I agree with as to what the sources say, and have already pointed you at WP:DR; I've really no interest in dealing with content issues on this article beyond the non-negotiable policy and legal issues they raise. (4) I haven't slept now for over 48 hours; please ask someone who cares. I've set out my stall and, I believe, edited the article to properly reflect what is justified by the cited sources. Rodhull andemu
 * There really is no need for this tone, nor for any of your baseless accusations. Your rewording is virtually fine (principally because there's no meaningful difference between it and the original), and if you had made those edits in the first place rather than removing all reference to Mark Walker I doubt I would even have noticed (top tip; if one out of three references fails to support a particular claim, it's the reference that ought to go, not the claim). My single remaining issue is that the Northern Echo article states that "no illegal material" was found on Walker's equipment, not that no pornography was found on it. In no form did the article ever allege that Walker had done anything illegal. I'm going to reword the article to reflect that: I'm sure you will let me know if you object. Finally, a friendly suggestion: work on your people and negotiative skills; it's likely to make life easier for all concerned.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that the "Fr" in your username is intended as a short cut for "Father", which implies that you are a Christian minister. In which case, perhaps you should be forgiving me. Christ may have had 40 days and nights in the desert resisting the temptation of Satan; but I do think he did manage to get some occasional sleep. Goodnight. Rodhull  andemu  00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My namesake is more likely to keep you awake than forgive your sins, but I wish you a peaceful and enjoyable forty winks.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Me
I presume that was sarcastic, but I only want to treat Ottava as he treats others. Are you aware of his history? Block me you if you wish, but this person needs to be taken down if we are to have a collegial and not ego/political driven atmosphere on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care. Stoking the flames does not help to build a collegiate atmosphere, or an encyclopedia, and you are no more immune from blocking than anyone, particularly in the light of Giano's and Peter Damian's recent blocks. They should have been lessons that there is no free lunch here, and in general it is plain to me that patience for that sort of prima-donna behaviour is diminishing rapidly. A gentleman might have walked away, thinking "dickhead!", but not actually saying so. I say it as I see it, but usually within the rules. Nobody's perfect, of course, but there comes a time when "fuck it" is the only rational response left open; but that should be resisted for the benefit of the project as a whole. But again, however great one's contributions are, if the attitude sucks, that's poisonous to the environment we should be encouraging here. Rodhull  andemu  01:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rodhull, Ceoil has every right to point out what he thinks is evidence towards proof that I am acting out of bad-faith. That is part of the consensus process, as consensus must be done in an unbiased matter, and people must be provided evidence if there is a clear conflict. This is not to say that his argument is correct. However, it does deal with the central issue, that of Wikipedia Review and my interactions with LessHeard on it. If you feel that it is inappropriate, why not move it to the RfA talk page and put a link saying that the conversation went off topic?Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that these kind of discussions, particularly when they involve accusations concerning matters on WR, IRC and possibly elsewhere, are totally out of order on one guy's RfA. You'll notice that I have supported LHVU in his RFa, so to avoid accusations of bias I am not going to comment per se on the merits of yours, or Ceoils's arguments; suffice it to say that the feeling I get from being around here for nearly two years now that although TEH DRAHMAZ is somewhat unavoidable, nothing is happening to improve that situation. ArbCom is as slow as ever, RFC seems to be a dead duck, and while individual editors appear to me to lack the maturity, or will, to either negotiate or avoid each other, then sorry, but there have to be sanctions. The problem I have is that I am not a member of any cabal or faction, so I must act independently and ultimately have to defend my decisions in a warzone. I'm not prepared to do that. I came here to write an encyclopedia, not decide which of two spoilt kids should get the lollipop. Meanwhile, it's been a long (two) day(s), and the arms of Morpheus are calling me. Rodhull  andemu  01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, Category:Articles that need to be wikified isn't empty yet. Rodhull  andemu  01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't have time for gnome work. I am only 4 pages into 8 for the first set of Coleridge Juvenilia pages and 2 pages of 8 for Ainsworth's authorship controversy. Then there are 12 pages I have to make slight improvements for GA, a few for FAC, and then 16 more Coleridge pages, 24 or so more Ainsworth pages, then finishing up Keats's scattered poetry before polishing off biographies, including Byron's, Wordsworth's, and Milton's early lives, finishing with Charles Matthews Milton's biography, and then finally working on sets for Charles Lamb, Leigh Hunt, and William Hazlit. With research, tracking down sources, parsing content, my 6 hours a day put into Wiki is only able to produce about 2 pages a day, which will mean I have a full schedule until November at the earliest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You explained your openion on the situation well, Rodhullandemu, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Look at the EveryKing RFA; Ottava has influence in the eyes of some, and so but cannot be left uncontested to badger all around him with half truths, untruths and worse, ad naseum. Reasoning or counter argument doesn't work with him, so what else? Block thoes who snap in fustration at his endless anti-logic? Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fighting fire with fire only ends up with someone getting burned. When you engage a contrary editor on a one-to-one basis, particularly in an inappropriate venue, the natural and probable consequence is, er, very little except clouding the issues. So there are four options here: dispute resolution, for content-based issues; Wikiquette alerts, for breaches of WP:CIVIL; WP:ANI, for breaches of policy, and Request for comment, if this is a continuing problem. Oh, there's a fifth option too. I have far too much to do to mediate between you, as I have said, so I'll just set out the options and leave you to pick your preferred one. Rodhull  andemu  01:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RMH Death
Some Korean sources use the word hiking and some make it out as hill climbing, but I don't think there are problems with using either terms. There are also slim possibilities of suicide but so far it seems pretty illogical (at least to me). I feel pretty bad for him though. Happy editing! 76.254.3.66 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's a minor detail but in general we should say what the cited source says, nothing more or less. Thanks for getting back to me. Rodhull  andemu  01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk page unprotection
Requests for page protection says If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here. - so here goes.

At User talk:Bzuk it's been suggested that:"WP:PROTECT notes that, if one protects his/her talk page, the user should 'have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users'." If such an unprotected page isn't provided, might it be appropriate to unprotect the primary talk page, at least until such time as an alternative unprotected subpage and conspicuous links are provided? I'm asking you because the log page says you protected it.

Help desk is self-explanatory; despite User talk:Bzuk and User talk:58.8.212.175 another of these problematic "welcome" edits has since been made so I think the issue warrants a "bump". If unprotection isn't the answer, alternative suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks. 58.8.16.52 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It's been protected for a couple of months now, but I would wish to ascertain Bzuk's wishes before unprotecting it. I agree that there should be an unprotected subpage, and I see another admin has already commented there. I'll leave a note for Bzuk asking him to clarify. I'll also look into any other concerns you have. Rodhull  andemu  16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was an improperly-formatted local copy of W-screen, which I have fixed. Rodhull  andemu  17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, much appreciated. FWIW I purged the template page and an example talk page, then added a new section at the bottom (ie immediately following one of the problematic "welcome" messages, the only message already on the page), but when I previewed it the problem was still there. 58.8.16.52 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

IP/School Vandal
Could you take a look here? It's a school IP that just came off a short block and has been very busy since. <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk• 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably would help to just link to the contribs. Oh well, I don't do this too often. <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk• 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for three months and left my reasons on the talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhull  andemu  23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What to do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Laughterguy <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk• 04:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert Richard Wright (musician)
Regarding, Rick at least played accordion in the 1980/81 The Wall shows, see "Outside the Wall". -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  10:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found it hard to believe, as well as being unsourced. But trombone? Rodhull  andemu  12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a picture in Mason's book. But I don't know if he played it on any (early) recordings or in concert. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ps: See "Biding My Time". -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord <sup style="color:#FFFF00;">2  13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

how to add new talk
how do u make a new discussion Lotusexige (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You just did it. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Heather Mills
Hi there. Interesting (& V fast!) 'undo', but I just want to dispute it with you. If you read the two sources that I supplied, they too are putting "close friendship" in parenthesis and I read that as they too think that there may be more to it than the standard denial, or permanent No Comment that Sinden always does. That is why I put it that way. Can I appeal to you and return the line please? Captainclegg (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording was "Media speculation", which implies some sort of editorial analysis or comment, and I didn't see that; I have no idea why they parenthesise "close friendship", but scarequotes generally indicate disbelief. It isn't up to us, however, to interpret that as it's original research. In any case, "Media speculation" isn't really worth that much, as it's basically gossip. Given that the article is a biography, I think it better to err on the side of caution and just report facts. Hope that helps, but please feel free to raise it on the article talk page, where other interested editors may have input. Rodhull  andemu  14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:AssignedPA
Template:AssignedPA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Maccy69 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Facial mole
I have nominated Facial mole for deletion. If interested, see the AfD at: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_30. ---kilbad (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Stephenson (civil rights campaigner)
Hi, I am interested as to the reason why you changed to category of the above from Black British people to Black British politicians as the subject has never stood for political office. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have spent this weekend removing duplicate categories from Category:Black British people when these are better described by more informative subcategories; in my definition of Category:Black British politicians I have included trade unionists and campaigners on political issues for simplicity. Hope that helps, and I don't rule out further refinement in this area. Rodhull  andemu  22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)